[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Just because people describe themselves as “historians” doesn’t make them correct. Testimony on these events is far from conclusive, and it’s not going to get any clearer as time goes by. Only the people who were there that night know what happened, and all the self-appointed experts aren’t going to change that.

Even if we succumb to the popular view that Cobb’s opinion of blacks was so different from the enlightened views we enjoy now (seeing as we have eliminated our racial troubles), it doesn’t mean that he murdered them in his spare time.

Self-defense is a gray area of the law, and not as neatly encapsulated as your example suggests. Courts have been especially inconsistent in the application of self-defense defenses.

I’ve long since given up defending Cobb to those who choose to subscribe to the popular view of him. He was a complex, troubled man who did not fit as neatly in a box as many who characterize him would have us belive.

However, my point still stands: if the authorities had a murder case against him, they would have pursued it, you can be sure of that.

If you want to call someone who was never tried, where the facts were never presented in a court of law with testing of evidence and witnesses, a murderer, that’s your business. But don’t come on here and act like it’s a fact.